Hellams v. Patton

Citations

• 44 S.C. 454
• 22 S.E. 608
• 1895 S.C. LEXIS 104

Syllabus

<p>1. Parol Leases — Use—Parol Testimony — Case Gritioised.. — While a landlord, possibly, may not sue to recover the stipulated rent of a house, where the evidence of the lease is wholly in parol, he may sue to recover the value of the use and possession, and establish the claim by parol testimony. This case distinguished from Davis v. Pollock, 36 S. 0., 544.</p> <p>2. Ibid. — Tenancy from Year to Year.. — While the statute of frauds declares that parol leases shall have the effect of estates at will only, except leases not exceeding one year, with rent reserved of at least two-thirds the improved value, yet a parol lease may, by the act of the parties, be converted into a tenancy from year to year.</p> <p>3. Ibid. — Use—Case Criticised. — In action to recover compensation for the use and occupation of a house and lot, the trial judge erred in granting a nonsuit based upon the ground that an action would not lie where proof of occupation and value rested wholly in parol. The case of Davis v. Pollock, 36 S. 0., 544, stated.</p>